Was Hitler a coward?

[Lonewulf]

Therein lies the problem. You're looking for clear, black-and-white separations between civilian and military, and in the case of a war between industrialized nation-states, such clear separations really don't exist. It's all a large grey area.

D'uh, Corsair.

Thank you for the lecture, though. Was really necessary.

 

[Tolls]

Wait. You're saying that Hiroshima was an accident? It was a miss?

Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree.

Source is from http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

It seems like that they were targeting Hiroshima, and thought that the focusing effect would cause more damage... to what, exactly?

I did correct myself (well, I was corrected by Ian).
But just to point out, there was always a backup target should the main target be obscured (as happened with Nagasaki).

As for "more damage", to the city. As I said before, the war against Japan was not a war against two industrialised states. Japans war effort was built on a large cottage industry providing many of the parts that went into the production of weapons at the larger factories. It goes back to whether bombing the ball-bearing factory that supports the aircraft factory legitimate. I think it is.

In Hiroshimas case there was also the desire for a suitable test target.

I fully recognize that. But that doesn't make the targeting of civilians anything other than the targeting of civilians.


But when you directly attack apartment buildings, it seems that you're doing a lot more than simply attacking production for war machines. You're doing a lot more than attacking a factory when you use an atomic weapon.

Pretending like you're not attacking civilian targets really seems to be a way to just try to get out of the issue...

Did the allies directly attack apartment buildings? In other words, were those buildings the target, or were they simply near where the target was? Again, in the case of Japan, what about homes where machine parts were being made?

As for the atomic bomb, as many people were killed in the early March raids on Tokyo as were killed in the bombing of Hiroshima, so the idea that the bomb was somehow more indiscriminate doesn't really sit with me.

You're not saying that attacking civilian targets is wrong, you're saying that there are times when it's justified. And I would agree with that, but not easily. In short, the benefits would have to far outweigh the costs.

I'm saying that there is some way to sanitise war, reducing it to conflicts between armies alone, simply isn't going to happen. It has never been the case, and I really can't see it becoming the case in the forseeable future...unless we end up in a Judge Dredd future where war is a sort of sport (see very early 2000ADs).

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

But my question is, can anyone here order the distant killing of innocent targets? If they aren't innocent, how would you define "innocent"?

Remember, the argument originally was that the distant ordering of the killing of innocents was what led to claims of cowardice.

If we are talking a Hamburg or a Dresden then yes, and without the benefit of hindsight I'd also go for the Japanese bombing raids as well. And I don't think it's cowardice.

 

[a_unique_person]

Hitler did have strange bedroom habits.

 

[Corsair 115]

D'uh, Corsair.

Thank you for the lecture, though. Was really necessary.

It was to prompt you to perhaps answer or expand upon your own question and defintions. Which you haven't.

And what about Tolls' response? It's along the same lines as mine.

 

[Lonewulf]

It was to prompt you to perhaps answer or expand upon your own question and defintions. Which you haven't.

Sigh, whatever.

Apparently bombing targets isn't killing civilians even when it's in a civilian area. You just have to "redefine" the target, and you're no longer killing civilians.*

I'll never understand it.

And what about Tolls' response? It's along the same lines as mine.

I honestly don't care anymore.

Keep thinking that no "civilians" were killed, or "civilian" buildings destroyed. I really don't care.*

But until people like you actually realize that JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SUGGESTS THAT CIVILIAN TARGETS WERE HIT, does not mean that they're saying IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. By continuing to fight that strawman, you'll never understand my position.

I brought up the targeting of civilian targets to challenge the claim that killing unarmed civilians made someone a coward. We apply that to our enemies, but apparently not to ourselves. Though I would suggest that outright genocide is 1000000% worse than bombing civilian targets during wartime, the claim was specifically centered around "killing unarmed civilians". Sometimes I challenge claims to get people to... how do you say it?

expand upon your own question and defintions

But apparently it just gets into a series of off-topic debates about how it wasn't REALLY targeting unarmed civilians or some bullspit like that.

I seriously don't care anymore. Hitler was a racist, a genocidal maniac, and loved killing other people in war. He was a horrible person. I personally don't consider him a coward in most any sense, but I do see him as a sociopathic, hateful, racist**, genocidal opportunist.

Apparently, though, it makes you a "Hitler Lover" to some people in this thread if you don't think he was cowardly, too. (Not you, Corsair. You didn't make that claim, I know).

Most definitions of "coward" given by people who make the claim that Hitler was a coward also seemingly don't want to apply that definition to any of the U.S. commanders, generals, or politicians, even though word by word of their definition could apply 100%. Though I do like the whole "symptom" thing that was brought up before. That was cool.

And by the way: Just because someone recognizes that civilian targets were hit, doesn't mean they were ignorant about the Pacific or World War II, thank you very much.












*Okay, I know you aren't claiming that. But unless you're saying that no civilian was actually targeted in any way, shape, or form, the reason I brought the subject up in the first place has gone uncontested.


**Most people were racist during that era, but Hitler was one of the extremists amongst them, to say the least.

 

[DOC]

According to this site by Mary Russel , he was afraid of a lot of things:

Frightened of priests and hunters, of cigarette smokers and skiers, of liberals, journalists, germs and dirt, of gypsies, judges, and Americans. He was frightened of being wrong, of being weak, of being effeminate. Frightened of poets and of Poles, of academics and Jehovah's Witnesses. Frightened of moonlight and horses, of snow and water and the dark. Frightened of microbes and spirochetes, of feces, and of old men, and of the French."

http://users.adelphia.net/~druss44121/threadofgrace.htm

 

[Ocelot]

According to this site by Mary Russel , he was afraid of a lot of things:

Frightened of priests and hunters, of cigarette smokers and skiers, of liberals, journalists, germs and dirt, of gypsies, judges, and Americans. He was frightened of being wrong, of being weak, of being effeminate. Frightened of poets and of Poles, of academics and Jehovah's Witnesses. Frightened of moonlight and horses, of snow and water and the dark. Frightened of microbes and spirochetes, of feces, and of old men, and of the French."

http://users.adelphia.net/~druss44121/threadofgrace.htm

Erm.. Doc, You do know that's a excerpt from a work of fiction don't you?

 

[Corsair 115]

Apparently bombing targets isn't killing civilians even when it's in a civilian area.

Differing definitions of targetting perhaps? To me it means unless you are specifically going after the civilian with the full intent of attacking the civilian explicitly, then they aren't being targetted.

Keep thinking that no "civilians" were killed, or "civilian" buildings destroyed.

Definitional issue again it seems to me. In a war between industrialized nation-states where the entire national economy has been converted to support the war effort, being civilian does not necessarily absolve of all responsibility for the war. The civil population's efforts are vital to that country sustaining and continuing the war.

But until people like you actually realize that JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SUGGESTS THAT CIVILIAN TARGETS WERE HIT, does not mean that they're saying IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE.

Fair enough. But you could have included disclaimer in your points for folks like me not so quick to read between the lines.

And by the way: Just because someone recognizes that civilian targets were hit, doesn't mean they were ignorant about the Pacific or World War II, thank you very much.

If I include material in a post, it's for the sake of thoroughness and because I don't assume all the other posters here might be familiar with it. If you already know it, feel free to skip those paragraphs.

I seriously don't care anymore.

Then the conversation is at an end.

 

[Lonewulf]

If I include material in a post, it's for the sake of thoroughness and because I don't assume all the other posters here might be familiar with it. If you already know it, feel free to skip those paragraphs.

Well, fair enough.

Then the conversation is at an end.

Also fair enough.

 

[Nogbad]

Not true. He was a coward and a weak person internally. He
compensated this by exactly this kind of behavior Hitler is
beloved these days. Never confuse someone's strong appearance
with someone's weak mind - or people get another Hitler one day.
Same goes to playing big-balled Macho in a Pilot-Jumpsuit.

I think you are conflating personality defects with cowardice in this particular case - although it is true that cowards can be vicious. Hitler was clearly disturbed - anyone who thought the WW1 trenches a happy place was not in their right mind. His inability to empathise with the suffering of others largely explains his willingness to sacrifice so many - both German and non-German.

I don't think a comparison with the jump suited one is all that direct. He rather sensibly avoided military service and was content for others to do the necessary, whereas Hitler seems to have loved his time in trenches. However, the latter's love of war and the suffering in the trenches may not be bravery in the conventional sense as much as some mis-placed ultra patriotism that superseded personal feelings. He was in my view neither brave nor weak but driven by feelings and ideologies that rode rough-shod over what we would consider socially normal parameters of decency and consideration for others. Leaders should be veted for such traits and excluded accordingly because I do agree we don't want another Hitler.

 

[Tolls]

I think you are conflating personality defects with cowardice in this particular case - although it is true that cowards can be vicious. Hitler was clearly disturbed - anyone who thought the WW1 trenches a happy place was not in their right mind. His inability to empathise with the suffering of others largely explains his willingness to sacrifice so many - both German and non-German.

I don't think a comparison with the jump suited one is all that direct. He rather sensibly avoided military service and was content for others to do the necessary, whereas Hitler seems to have loved his time in trenches. However, the latter's love of war and the suffering in the trenches may not be bravery in the conventional sense as much as some mis-placed ultra patriotism that superseded personal feelings. He was in my view neither brave nor weak but driven by feelings and ideologies that rode rough-shod over what we would consider socially normal parameters of decency and consideration for others. Leaders should be veted for such traits and excluded accordingly because I do agree we don't want another Hitler.

Surprisingly large numbers of soldiers on both sides on the Western Front actually missed the trenches after the war. Richard Holmes does quite a good job on this in Tommy. The trenches were not quite the horror show so frequently portrayed.

 

[MaGZ]

Erm.. Doc, You do know that's a excerpt from a work of fiction don't you?

It would not be the first time fiction about Hitler passed for fact.

 

[Lonewulf]

Surprisingly large numbers of soldiers on both sides on the Western Front actually missed the trenches after the war. Richard Holmes does quite a good job on this in Tommy. The trenches were not quite the horror show so frequently portrayed.

"Not quite the horror show"? Doesn't millions of casualties kinda define the horror show?

http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html

Now, you can say that the majority of people that fought, didn't die, but c'mon... when you compare the killed/wounded rates, they're not quite anything to scoff at. Plus, 1/10th of soldiers dying (for Russia) dying really isn't anything to laugh at. 1/2 were wounded. 1/10th of Russian soldiers died, and 1/6th were injured. Very few people in the U.S. died, but we became involved towards the end of the war. Austria lost nearly 1/7th of soldiers, and 1/2th were killed. Germany has 1/10th killed rate, with less than 1/2th wounded rate. These are really some nasty figures. Can you imagine what would happen if 1/2th of the entire U.S. army were injured, and 1/10th killed?

Tell ya something, I'd rather not die of Mustard Gas... dying from that is slow, usually due to infection.

In total, you're talking about over 3 million dead, and 8 million wounded. Sure, I guess compared to the figures of undesirables killed by Hitler, that's nothing... but it's still 3 million human beings killed. It states that total casualties were around 37 million people, but I think that includes wounded and prisoners.

I feel that WWI also psychologically prepared societies to commit later genocides (such as Hitler's genocide, the Armenian genocide, and the various other genocides around during that time, russia's VAST number of genocides, etc. After all, after you've killed 1 million soldiers... what's a few thousand more? If you've killed a few thousand, what's a few thousand more? And so and so on...

 

[Tolls]

"Not quite the horror show"? Doesn't millions of casualties kinda define the horror show?

http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html

Now, you can say that the majority of people that fought, didn't die, but c'mon... when you compare the killed/wounded rates, they're not quite anything to scoff at. Plus, 1/10th of soldiers dying (for Russia) dying really isn't anything to laugh at. 1/2 were wounded. 1/10th of Russian soldiers died, and 1/6th were injured. Very few people in the U.S. died, but we became involved towards the end of the war. Austria lost nearly 1/7th of soldiers, and 1/2th were killed. Germany has 1/10th killed rate, with less than 1/2th wounded rate. These are really some nasty figures. Can you imagine what would happen if 1/2th of the entire U.S. army were injured, and 1/10th killed?

Tell ya something, I'd rather not die of Mustard Gas... dying from that is slow, usually due to infection.

In total, you're talking about over 3 million dead, and 8 million wounded. Sure, I guess compared to the figures of undesirables killed by Hitler, that's nothing... but it's still 3 million human beings killed. It states that total casualties were around 37 million people, but I think that includes wounded and prisoners.

All well and good, and I admit my post was a little on the thin side (must avoid doing quick posts on such subjects, but hey ho), but that wasn't really the point. A lot of the people involved on the western front (so reference to Austria and Russia aside, I cannot vouch for them, or the Italians/Turks etc) did not hold the view that is frequently ascribed to the Great War, ie one of unremitting horror.

There were large numbers of soldiers who, when injured and returned to Blighty, took the earliest opportunity to return to the trenches. There were many who, in the years after the war, looked back with some...nostalgia I suppose...of their time in the trenches. I was using this to show that Hitlers view of WW1 amongst those who were involved was far from unusual.

Again, I would recommend Tommy. Another possibility would be General Jack's Diary, though Terraine's commentary is probably not to everyones taste.

I feel that WWI also psychologically prepared societies to commit later genocides (such as Hitler's genocide, the Armenian genocide, and the various other genocides around during that time, russia's VAST number of genocides, etc. After all, after you've killed 1 million soldiers... what's a few thousand more? If you've killed a few thousand, what's a few thousand more? And so and so on...

WW1 really added little to the ability of large areas of Europe to be gits to the "not-we". Russian pogroms were a regular event, for example.

The groundwork for the holocaust was laid long before WW1, and that war really only added the "stabbed in the back" idea. I can't see the losses somehow adding to that in the slightest. Same applies to Russia.

 

[Georg]

It would not be the first time fiction about Hitler passed for fact.

That´s actually quite funny when postulated by a Nazi fanboy like you.

 

[Lonewulf]

All well and good, and I admit my post was a little on the thin side (must avoid doing quick posts on such subjects, but hey ho), but that wasn't really the point. A lot of the people involved on the western front (so reference to Austria and Russia aside, I cannot vouch for them, or the Italians/Turks etc) did not hold the view that is frequently ascribed to the Great War, ie one of unremitting horror.

There were large numbers of soldiers who, when injured and returned to Blighty, took the earliest opportunity to return to the trenches. There were many who, in the years after the war, looked back with some...nostalgia I suppose...of their time in the trenches. I was using this to show that Hitlers view of WW1 amongst those who were involved was far from unusual.

Can you talk of percentages, though? Exact figures? I'm willing to accept that "some" people looked back with nostalgia... but how large of numbers are we talking about? Do you have figures?

WW1 really added little to the ability of large areas of Europe to be gits to the "not-we". Russian pogroms were a regular event, for example.

The groundwork for the holocaust was laid long before WW1, and that war really only added the "stabbed in the back" idea. I can't see the losses somehow adding to that in the slightest. Same applies to Russia.

So you're saying that it didn't get populations used to the idea of millions of casualties? Very few wars before then had accumulated quite so many casualties. I do not think that it is a coincidence that you didn't see quite so many massive genocides as you did shortly after WWI...

 

[Nogbad]

All well and good, and I admit my post was a little on the thin side (must avoid doing quick posts on such subjects, but hey ho), but that wasn't really the point. A lot of the people involved on the western front (so reference to Austria and Russia aside, I cannot vouch for them, or the Italians/Turks etc) did not hold the view that is frequently ascribed to the Great War, ie one of unremitting horror.

There were large numbers of soldiers who, when injured and returned to Blighty, took the earliest opportunity to return to the trenches. There were many who, in the years after the war, looked back with some...nostalgia I suppose...of their time in the trenches. I was using this to show that Hitlers view of WW1 amongst those who were involved was far from unusual.

Again, I would recommend Tommy. Another possibility would be General Jack's Diary, though Terraine's commentary is probably not to everyones taste.



WW1 really added little to the ability of large areas of Europe to be gits to the "not-we". Russian pogroms were a regular event, for example.

The groundwork for the holocaust was laid long before WW1, and that war really only added the "stabbed in the back" idea. I can't see the losses somehow adding to that in the slightest. Same applies to Russia.

I would agree that the experience of the war was not uniform (no pun intended). Some parts of the western front were susprisingly quiet and for long periods both sides contrived to keep it that way whereas in other areas (which bore the brunt of superior officer attention and an imperiative to fight) the experience was pretty ghastly. The eastern front as ever was pretty awful from the outset.

The Austrian- Serbian front was truly dreadful and the Serbs took terrible losses as they tried to hold back the much larger Austrian Army (1/2 I believe). The Gallipoli campaign was also a downright nasty experience.

Despite all this, soldiers bonded with their comrades and in the face of death felt alive. Away from the really brutal campaigns it is not unreasonable that some did find civilian life afterwards dull. Hitler was gassed and saw action on one of the more active fronts and I think his reaction to the conflict was more than simple "comrades in arms" nostalgia. He became innured to death destruction and loss.

The War, followed by terrible deprivation in central Europe and Russia with malnutrition and starvation, Spanish flu and a number of bloody revolutions led to the break down of old certainties. I think it is no surprise that the most sceptical countries on Earth are the European ones. The carnage of war, disease and political repression does not give one a warm feeling that the universe is a benign place.

Yes the roots of the holocaust were laid in Medieval Europe but I think WW1 was another door unlocked towards that event happening. It is unlikely such an extreme event would have occurred under the old order. The World political order is likely to have been quite different had WW1 not taken place. Whether it would be better is not that easy a call though.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well, I admit, it IS easy to blame WWI after the fact. Ad Hoc reasoning and all. It's hard to say that further genocides wouldn't have happened without WWI.

I'd say that WWI certainly helped, though.

 

[Tolls]

Can you talk of percentages, though? Exact figures? I'm willing to accept that "some" people looked back with nostalgia... but how large of numbers are we talking about? Do you have figures?

No statistics, since there's not likely to be a poll of WW1 veterans around. All I can do is recommend Tommy. It's pretty well researched. Holmes doesn't generally cherry pick.

So you're saying that it didn't get populations used to the idea of millions of casualties? Very few wars before then had accumulated quite so many casualties. I do not think that it is a coincidence that you didn't see quite so many massive genocides as you did shortly after WWI...

Napoleon lost 500,000 men in around 6 months in Russia. He was to lose almost as many in the following year. The same proportion of casualties to forces committed were lost by Wellington's army at Waterloo as were lost by the British on the first day of the Somme. And that's just a couple of Napoleonic examples. Europe was well conditioned long before WW1 to heavy losses.

What changed was industrial capacity, and abuse of sciences to forward pre-existing prejudices. WW1, or more exactly the immediate aftermath, merely provided the breeding ground in both Germany and Russia (and elsewhere, but it took hold there). The casualty lists really played little part in later events.

Hitler and his ilk tapped into old prejudices. They utilised post-war myths (ie Ludendorffs view of being stabbed in the back) to further their agenda, assigning blame to groups they disliked (no need to mention here the two primary groups). That's the connection with later events. The industrial age merely magnified events that had happened time and again in the past.

Japan, as a further example, didn't play a major part in the Great War, and yet they also committed some appalling atrocities.

 

[Lonewulf]

Napoleon lost 500,000 men in around 6 months in Russia. He was to lose almost as many in the following year. The same proportion of casualties to forces committed were lost by Wellington's army at Waterloo as were lost by the British on the first day of the Somme. And that's just a couple of Napoleonic examples. Europe was well conditioned long before WW1 to heavy losses.

What, in every single country throughout Europe? Don't think that the two are directly comparable, really.

I still find it interesting the rash of genocides you saw all throughout Europe, though. It wasn't just Russia and Germany, but also the Armenian Genocide, and various others.

Japan, as a further example, didn't play a major part in the Great War, and yet they also committed some appalling atrocities.

That's a good point, really.